Harvard’s Radcliffe Quad was a haven for dogs until incidents with a student wielding a stick
Dog owners who frequent Harvard’s Radcliffe Quadrangle are upset after one of the university’s college students charged at unleashed dogs with a large wooden stake on three occasions in May. In addition to the student incidents, they say Harvard’s response has muddled a relationship with the neighborhood that has endured for years.
The first incident took place in early May, according to a woman who asked to be identified only as a Cambridge resident. She said a fellow dog owner – a Harvard graduate student – confided that her own puppy had been recently chased by the college student wielding a post.
Residents and students discussing the conflicts weren’t comfortable having their names appear on the record. Some expressed concern about retaliation; others said they wanted to be sensitive when discussing potential student mental or emotional health issues.
Another incident took place May 16, according to a Harvard graduate student who was present. He said two dogs briefly ventured into the quad’s vegetable garden and the college student chased them away, brandishing the stick.
A verbal altercation ensued. The student charging with the stake told one of the dog owners he was afraid of the animals, which was not accepted by the owner as justification for his conduct.
After seeing that dispute, the Harvard graduate student emailed the Harvard University Police Department to express concern that this type of incident could escalate. HUPD told him the department would dispatch extra officers to the area and send someone to talk with the college student who went after the dogs. HUPD did not respond to an inquiry about whether they followed through.
Incidents continued
Despite the promised intervention, the Cambridge resident said another incident occurred May 23. She provided text messages between her and another dog owner – this time a Harvard Law School graduate who described the college student running after her dog with a wooden stick.
When the Cambridge resident saw the college student three days later, on May 26, she confronted him and said she would call the police if he threatened her dog. The situation escalated and the student called his house dean to the scene for help.
Dean Ian Miller said he told dog owners that the quad was university property. He also reminded those gathered that dogs were not permitted off leash; an email to the same effect went out to members of his residential house.
Dog owners acknowledged in interviews that there is a sign, albeit small, in the quad that says dogs must be leashed. The rule has not historically been enforced, they said.
New tension
The Cambridge resident said the dean’s response to the situation – namely, his failure to acknowledge what she saw as the student’s inappropriate behavior and his shifting of responsibility to dog owners – made her feel “unwelcome” in the quad.
She said she understands it’s a “privilege” to use the green space. Still, she said, dog owners have been “good neighbors” and deserve respect. “Harvard is not on the moon or another planet. They are in our town,” she added. “We belong here.”
Frustrated with the dean’s refusal to engage dog owners in a dialogue or discuss a solution, she emailed HUPD on June 2 complaining about the string of incidents. “People who are afraid [of] dogs don’t chase them with sticks,” she wrote. She said she did not get a reply.
There have been no further incidents this month, as far as those interviewed know. Still, the Harvard graduate student who first contacted HUPD said May’s events made him feel “nervous” returning to the quad with his dog. “It definitely makes it more of a nerve-wracking experience and less of an enjoyable experience,” he said.
Confusion over the quad
Another Cambridge resident who frequents the Radcliffe green area said there is now a frustrating ambiguity around the quad’s de facto rules, explaining that she and others in her network aren’t sure whether they can resume their customary use of the quad or let their dogs play unleashed.
This resident did not see any of the May incidents herself, though she did hear about them from at least five fellow dog owners.
“I do know that the dog owners are all very responsible and the quad has been a community for all of us for over 10 years,” she said. “I’d be very upset if I as a dog owner and a Cambridge resident cannot take my dog to the quad to enjoy play groups and for myself to make new friends. There has to be a way for a compromise to be worked out with Harvard’s administration.”
The university can’t comment on allegations about a student, Harvard spokesperson Brigid O’Rourke said.
“… made her feel ‘unwelcome’ in the quad.” If her dog is off its leash, she is unwelcome in the quad. These dog owners need to drop their sense of entitlement and follow the rules.
The is no “shifting of responsibility”. The rules are clear. No off leash dogs.
Dog owners in high-density urban settings….the poster children for “privileged”.
1. The sign is not small it’s a standard sized sign. Dogs must be on leashes.
2. The Quad is not a Harvard sponsored community dog park. It exists for the students and residential staff to enjoy. Neighbors have traditionally been welcome but can’t expect that to continue if they intentionally ignore the rules.
3. Since March 2020 the neighbor traffic at the Quad has increased significantly. Nearby campus housing with a clearly defined back yard for the residents had been inundated with dog walkers. People cluelessly wandering into people’s backyard as of that is acceptable.
4. Obviously no one wants a college student running and yelling at dogs. But the Harvard College community standards don’t yet have a section on what to do when a student overreacts to community members violating Harvard’s rules.
Imagine entering someone’s private property, ignoring the posted rules, being told by a resident of said property that your rule-breaking dog is trashing your property and making them feel uncomfortable, and your response is to—call the police on them? Imagine that you’re a group of entitled middle aged Cambridge elites who think your dog’s playtime is more important than a teenager’s sense of safety and security in their own home. And imagine you’re a ‘newspaper’ so desperate to represent the voice and seek the approval of said elite that you continue to condone such bullying of a kid. I’m truly disturbed to have these people as my ‘neighbors’.
Wording of Cambridge ordinance:
6.04.030 – Dogs—Leash or restraint
A.No person owning or keeping a dog shall permit it to be at large other than on his or her own premises; if it be on the premises of another person, it shall be with the knowledge and permission of such other person. The owner, keeper or person having custody of a dog which is not on the premises of the owner or upon the premises of another person with the knowledge and permission of such person shall keep the dog under control by means of a chain, rope or cord not exceeding six feet in length of sufficient strength to control the actions of such dog.
This article (from a first-time contributor, it appears) seems to be written more to gin up outrage among extremely entitled dog owners than to actually inform or enlighten. As others have ably noted, it’s plenty clear that dogs must be leashed, and these dog-owners were in violation of this requirement. I’m also troubled by the use of anonymous sources for the dog walkers, including one who apparently didn’t actually witness the alleged “incidents”. Really, I think a more fitting headline would be “entitled Cambridge dog-owners disturb garden and harass student”. The entitlement of the most privileged and vocal Cambridge residents, and their desire to make things worse for everything else, truly seems to have no limit.
Like all the other commenters, I have to side with Harvard on this one.
I live next to Donnelly Field, and dog owners there illegally have dogs off-leash all the time. They used to be polite and responsible about it, and it wasn’t a problem. In the past few years, that’s stopped; there are a few dog owners who are incredibly aggressive about it, to the point where if some dog owners are there, I can no longer take kids with allergies there.
We ought to have dog parks and non-dog-parks. Rules at both ought to be enforced. If things got to where people need to fend off dogs with sticks, it seems things have gone a long ways off of the rails.
Did that person really say they take their dog to the Quad for play groups? These aren’t children who can be reasoned with…they are undisciplined animals who steal our food, jump on us, and this is frightening for some of us. Their owners are usually off chatting and socializing. Don’t make your dog my responsibility.
It doesn’t matter where dog-child owners take their dog/child, they can care less what the signs say. Rules, when it comes to dog-child owners are for other people (non dog-child owners).
What would happen if I took my cat to this area. Would the dog-child owners make sure my cat wasn’t attacked by their dogs-children, give me a break. One of their dogs-children would kill my cat and the dog-child owner would say, well, you shouldn’t have brought your cat here. Never mind that the dog-child was suppose to be on a leash.
I take it none of you drive your cars pass the speed limit, eh?
Vast majority of folks taking their dogs to the Radcliffe quad are associated with Harvard.
Good to know that I didn’t need to establish my “elite” status via flights on United Airlines and I could just rescue a dog through MSPCA!